Timber boundary fences at 4 Fletcher Hill Park, Kirkby Stephen

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought for timber fencing along the southern front and western side boundaries of the dwelling.

“This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the erection of fencing along the southern (front) and western (side) boundaries of 4 Fletcher Hill Park, Kirkby Stephen. The fencing was installed following the removal of a former hedge and provides clear boundary definition and additional privacy within a residential setting.”

“The fencing is fully installed and is the subject of this retrospective application. A lower form of boundary treatment was previously in place along the front boundary from at least 2009. The current fencing works commenced on 1 April 2023 and were completed on 1 May 2023. the fencing has been installed in the same location as the earlier front boundary feature.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site is a detached single-storey dwelling on a corner plot in an established residential estate, with a low stone wall and planting along the frontage.

“The application site comprises a detached single-storey dwelling located on a corner plot within the residential estate of Fletcher Hill Park in Kirkby Stephen. The property occupies a rectangular plot with its southern boundary fronting the estate road and its western boundary adjoining the neighbouring dwelling.”

“At the application site, a low stone wall runs along the southern boundary. Planting has been established within the front garden, and a mature tree is positioned near the southeast corner of the plot. The recently installed fencing sits behind this stone wall and continues along the western boundary between the two properties.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the fencing appropriate in scale and design, with planting reducing its prominence and no unacceptable effects on visual or residential amenity.

“Accordingly, the fencing is considered to respond appropriately to the character and layout of the dwelling and its immediate setting. It satisfies the design criteria set out in Policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan, which require development to demonstrate an understanding of the form and character of the built environment, and it aligns with the principles of good design set out in Paragraph 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2024), particularly in…”

“In assessing the proposal, regard has been had to the scale, design, materials, and siting of the fencing, as well as its impact on the character of the area and the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. The front boundary fencing, although exceeding 1 metre in height, is softened by planting growing through the fence, is formed of visually permeable trellis panels above a traditional stone wall and is set within a well-established garden.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The Town Council maintained its objection, while the Local Highway Authority raised no objection and confirmed there would be no highway safety or visibility impact.

“Follow-up Comments (12 January 2026): • The Council was reconsulted but resolved to maintain their objection. • No new planning issues were raised. • The Council reiterated its earlier position and did not amend or expand on its original comments.”

“No objection. • Confirmed that the proposal would not have a material effect on highway safety or visibility.”

Officer report

Public comments

Neighbour notifications and a site notice produced no public comments or objections.

“Neighbour notifications were issued on 31 October 2025. A site notice was displayed on 18 November 2025 in accordance with the Council’s procedures. No public comments or objections were received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Planning Officer presented the application, and a statement from the Town Council’s Clerk was read aloud because the Clerk could not attend.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed the side fence exceeding the permitted height and were told that landscaping reduced its visual impact and that no neighbours had complained.

“Members noted that the side fencing exceeded the maximum permitted height by 80cm, with the Planning Officer explaining that this had been accepted due to the nature of the fencing, which was integrated with the landscaping to reduce its visual impact. Councillor Hanley queried if any complaints had been received from neighbouring properties and the Officer confirmed that none had been.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The recommendation was proposed, seconded and agreed unanimously.

“The recommendation was proposed, seconded and unanimously;”

“RESOLVED, that planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the following condition:”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to retaining the development in accordance with the submitted plans and an informative about land ownership and boundary responsibility.

“Informative: Land ownership ad boundary responsibility.”

“This decision relates solely to the planning merits of the development and does not convey any legal rights to carry out works on land outside the applicant’s ownership or control. Where boundaries are jointly owned, the consent of all relevant landowners may be required prior to undertaking any works. Any dispute regarding land ownership or boundary position is a civil matter and does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Planning Authority.”

Minutes